United States ex rel. Locklear v. Medixx Transport, LLC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. MASON LOCKLEAR, and STATE OF GEORGIA, ex. rel. MASON LOCKLEAR, Plaintiffs,v.MEDIXX TRANSPORT, LLC, Defendant.

ORDER

Relator
Mason Locklear filed this False Claims Act (the
“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729, et
seq., case against his former employer Medixx Transport,
LLC. See doc. 4 (Complaint). Pursuant to the
provisions of the FCA, it was filed in camera and
under seal. Doc. 3. The United States and the State of
Georgia investigated Locklear's allegations and declined
to intervene in the action. Doc. 9. Locklear voluntarily
dismissed the case, but he seeks to maintain the seal or,
alternatively, preserve his anonymity. Doc. 10 (Motion to
Maintain Seal); doc. 11 (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal). The
Government and the State move to lift the seal. Doc. 12.

Locklear
argues that this now-defunct action should remain sealed in
order to protect the unserved defendant, Medixx Transport,
LLC, from negative publicity that may result from the public
disclosure of allegations to which it has not had an
opportunity to respond, and to protect him from any impact
his filing of this action might have on his future employment
prospects. See doc. 10 at 2-3. The Government and
the State argue that none of Locklear's arguments
overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access to
judicial records. Doc. 12 at 2-4. The Government and the
State are right.

There
is a strong presumption that judicial records shall be open
to public scrutiny. See, e.g., Romero v. Drummond Co.,
Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007); Freedom
from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Emanuel County School
System, 109 F.Supp. 1353, 1356 (S.D. Ga. 2015)
(“‘Lawsuits are public events,' and the
public has a presumptive right to know the identity of the
litigants who use the courts to resolve their
disputes.” (cites omitted). As other courts have
explained, “the FCA clearly contemplates that the
complaint be unsealed once the government has decided whether
to intervene, ” although it does not expressly address
whether other documents should be unsealed. UnitedStates, ex rel. Yannacopolous v. General Dynamics,
457 F.Supp.2d 854, 858 (N.D. Ill. 2006); see United
States ex rel. Herrera v, Bon Secours Cottage Health
Servs., 665 F.Supp.2d 782, 784-85 (E.D. Mich. 2008)
(“the [Act's] imposition of a 60-day time period
for sealing qui tam complaints reflects
Congress' desire to have the seal lifted after the
Government conducts its initial investigation and decides
whether to intervene.” (citation omitted)); United
States v. Aurora Diagnostics, Inc., 2017 WL 8781118 at *
2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2017) (explaining that the Act does not
“provide for the record to remain under seal
indefinitely; it only specifies that pleadings will be kept
under seal during the time in which the United States makes
its decision.” (quotes and cite omitted)); United
States v. Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2016 WL
6071737 at * 1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2016) (“In the
absence of a privileged trade secret or matter of national
security being discussed in a qui tam complaint, qui tam
complaints should be automatically unsealed when the
Government declines to intervene.” (emphasis added)).
Locklear's argument to maintain the seal on this action
permanently does not address that basic point.

Locklear's
alternative argument, [1] that he be allowed to file a redacted
version of the operative Complaint protecting his identity,
is similarly flawed. See doc. 10 at 15. As the
Government points out, allowing Locklear to do so would
amount to granting him the privilege of pursuing this case
anonymously. Doc. 12 at 5. Such a privilege is not
automatically granted to plaintiffs, and there is nothing
about qui tam plaintiffs that distinguishes them.
See, e.g., Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11th
Cir. 1992) (“it is the exceptional case in which a
plaintiff may proceed under a fictitious name.”);
see also Freedom From Religion Foundation, 109
F.Supp.3d at 1356 (“In some exceptional cases, the
public interest in knowing the identity of all the parties
must yield to a policy of protecting privacy in a very
private matter.” (emphasis added) (quotes and cite
omitted); United States ex rel. Grover v. Related
Companies, LP, 4 F.Supp.3d 21, 29 (D.D.C. 2013)
(declining to allow redaction of qui tam
plaintiff's identity because, among other reasons,
“redacting the Complaint before it is unsealed would
permit relators to assume all of the advantages of brining an
FCA claim without bearing any of the risks.”);
Herrera, 665 F.Supp.2d at 786 (rejecting qui
tam plaintiff's alternative request to redact her
name from unsealed pleadings). The Hererra court
specifically found that a plaintiff's fear of economic
consequences from filing suit were not sufficient to overcome
the presumption of publicity. See 665 F.Supp.2d at
785-86. Lockear's concerns appear identical to those
rejected in Herrera. See Grover, 4
F.Supp.3d at 26 (explaining that public interest is
implicated even in dismissed qui tam action because
“the Relator purported to be bringing a claim on behalf
of and in the interest of the public; the fact that the
Relator, himself, is abandoning the litigation does not
lessen or change the public's interest in hearing
allegations that the Government was defrauded”).

The
Government, although it supports lifting the seal on the
Locklear's pleadings, seeks to maintain the seal on its
own pleadings “as [the] information [they contain] was
provided in camera for the limited purpose of
demonstrating to the Court that good cause existed to extend
the seal and period during which the Government could notify
the Court of its decision on intervention.” Doc. 12 at
1. Unlike a relator's filings, “documents filed by
the Government that reveal its process of investigating
qui tam cases, such as requests for extensions of
time to intervene, may remain under seal indefinitely.”
Aurora Diagnostics, Inc., 2017 WL 8781118 at * 2
(citations omitted). A review of the Government's
pleadings supports its contention that those documents should
remain under seal.

Accordingly,
the Government and State's joint motion to lift the seal
on the Complaint is GRANTED. Doc. 12. Their
motion to maintain the seal on documents filed by the
Government is also GRANTED. Id. The
Government and State's previous motion to partially lift
the seal is DENIED as moot. Doc. 8.
Relator's motion to maintain the seal, or, in the
alternative, redact his identity, is DENIED.
Doc. 10. The Clerk is, therefore, DIRECTED
as follows:

1. The Relator's Complaint (doc. 4), Amended Complaint
(doc. 5), the Notice of Election to Decline Intervention
(doc. 9), Locklear's Motion to Maintain the Seal (doc.
10), the Government and State's Motion to Lift Seal (doc.
12), and this Order are to be unsealed;

2. All other documents filed by the Government and any orders
thereon shall remain under seal unless further ordered by the
Court;

3. The seal shall be lifted as to all other matters occurring
in this action, if any, after the date of this Order;

4. The parties shall serve any and all pleadings and motions
filed in this action, including supporting memoranda, upon
the Government as provided in 31 U.S.C. § 3730 and
O.C.G.A. § 49-4-168.2. The Government may order any
deposition transcripts and is entitled to intervene in this
action, for good cause, at any time;

5. The parties shall serve all notices of appeal upon the
Government;

6. All orders of this Court shall be sent to the Government;
and

7. Should the Relator or Defendant propose that this action
be dismissed, settled, or otherwise discontinued -- except by
voluntary dismissal without prejudice by the relator, which
the Government and State have consented to -- the Court will
solicit the written consent of the Government and State
before ruling or granting its approval.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;SO
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.